DAVIS v DAVIS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 11934 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN 1971 DAN DAVIS and D N L DAVIS, O AD P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - GEORGE V. DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Sid G. S t e w a r t , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : William R. Taylor argued, Deer Lodge, Montana. Hughes, Bennett and Alan F. Cain, Helena, Montana. Alan F. Cain argued, Helena, Montana. For Respondent : C. W. Leaphart, Jr. argued, Helena, Montana. Submitted: Decided : F i l e d : JAN 2 7 1972 December 2, 1971 JAN 2 7 1n 9 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s c a u s e i n v o l v e s two a c t i o n s c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r t r i a l purposes i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e t h i r d j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Powell County. The a c t i o n s were b r o u g h t by two b r o t h e r s a g a i n s t t h e i r u n c l e f o r b r e a c h o f o r a l c o n t r a c t s t o manage r a n c h p r o p e r ties. The m a t t e r was t r i e d t o t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h a j u r y . From a j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s , t h e defendant appeals. The p l a i n t i f f s a r e Dan Davis and Donald Davis. d e f e n d a n t i s George V. D a v i s , t h e i r u n c l e . The Each p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t was drawn i n t h r e e c o u n t s . Count I a l l e g e d a n o r a l c o n t r a c t r u n n i n g from t h e y e a r 1957 t h r o u g h 1964, whereby p l a i n t i f f s were t o each r e c e i v e a s a l a r y of $350 p e r month, p l u s f r e e meat, m i l k , u t i l i t i e s , and h o u s i n g . P l a i n t i f f s were a l s o t o r e c e i v e o n e - t h i r d o f t h e p r o f i t s o f t h e r a n c h e s and a s a f u r t h e r compensation each p l a i n t i f f was t o b e d e s i g n a t e d i n a w i l l , t o be e x e c u t e d by d e f e n d a n t , t o r e c e i v e t h e ranch upon which h e was l i v i n g i n t h e e v e n t of d e f e n dant's death. The r e s p e c t i v e c o m p l a i n t s a l l e g e t h a t t h e f u l l s h a r e o f p r o f i t s was n o t p a i d t o each p l a i n t i f f . Dan Davis p r a y s f o r $71,310 damages and Donald Davis p r a y s f o r $68,653 damages. Count I1 a l l e g e s a s i m i l a r o r a l agreement r u n n i n g from 1965 t h r o u g h 1966, under which each p l a i n t i f f was t o r e c e i v e t h e r e m u n e r a t i o n o u t l i n e d i n Count I, e x c e p t t h a t each p l a i n t i f f was t o r e c e i v e one-half of t h e p r o f i t s of t h e ranches, l e s s depreciat i o n ; and e a c h was t o h o l d t h e p r o f i t s r e c e i v e d f o r t h e purpose o f paying i n h e r i t a n c e t a x e s . P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h a t f o r the years 1965 and 1966, t h e y r e c e i v e d no p r o f i t s . Donald Davis p r a y s f o r $32,000 damages and Dan Davis p r a y s f o r $38,000 damages. Count 111 a l l e g e s i n s u b s t a n c e t h a t by h i s manner and a c t i o n s d e f e n d a n t prevented p l a i n t i f f s from performing t h e i r c o n t r a c t s ; t h a t p l a i n t i f f s b e l i e v e d e f e n d a n t has n o t provided f o r them i n h i s w i l l a s a g r e e d and t h e y pray f o r r e l i e f i n t h e n a t u r e of s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e , f o c c i n g d e f e n d a n t t o e x e c u t e a w i l l i n t h e manner a g r e e d upon. By way of answer d e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s were employed by him f o r t h e y e a r s s t a t e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t s b u t denied t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any s u c h agreements a s a l l e g e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t s . The bonus payments which were paid t o p l a i n t i f f s by d e f e n d a n t were a d m i t t e d ; d e f e n d a n t denied t h e y were paid p u r s u a n t t o any s e t c o n t r a c t s , b u t were p a i d i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of d e f e n d a n t . Defendant f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s breached t h e terms o f whatever agreements t h e y c o n s i d e r e d e x i s t e d between d e f e n d a n t and themselves by demanding $1,000 p e r month s a l a r y and t h r e a t e n i n g t o q u i t d e f e n d a n t ' s employ i f he f a i l e d t o a c c e d e t o t h e i r demands. Defendant a d d i t i o n a l l y s e t up t h e d e f e n s e t h a t p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s through t h e y e a r 1961, were b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s , s e c t i o n 93-2604(1), R.C.M. II An a c t i o n upon a c o n t r a c t * * * not 1947, which p r o v i d e s founded on an i n s t r u m e n t i n w r i t i n g " must be commenced w i t h i n f i v e y e a r s . Further, that the a l l e g e d o r a l c o n t r a c t s t o make a w i l l were v o i d a s i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e o f f r a u d s , s e c t i o n 13-606, R . C . M . 93-1401-7(1) and ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947, and s e c t i o n 1947. During t h e c o u r s e o f t h e t r i a l t h e d i s t r i c t judge g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a s t o t h e c l a i m s of p l a i n t i f f s f o r wages and s h a r e s o f p r o f i t f o r t h e y e a r s 1956 t o 1961, on t h e ground t h a t s u c h c l a i m s were b a r r e d by t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . The c o u r t a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h e d e f e n d a n t had performed t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e agreements r e g a r d i n g t h e d r a f t i n g o f a w i l l , s i n c e d e f e n d a n t had d r a f t e d and e x e c u t e d a w i l l naming p l a i n t i f f s Donald Davis and Dan Davis a s d e v i s e e s o f c e r t a i n p r o p e r t i e s i n Powell County which p l a i n t i f f s had been managing f o r defendant. C o n s e q u e n t l y , a t t h e c l o s e o f t h e evidence, Count I11 i n each c o m p l a i n t was d i s m i s s e d , w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n . The m a t t e r was t h e n s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y , which r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of e a c h p l a i n t i f f i n t h e amount of $38,205.34. Defendant-appellant presents f i v e i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Whether t h e v e r d i c t and judgment i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . 2. Whether p l a i n t i f f s must be h e l d , a s a m a t t e r o f law, t o have waived t h e i r r i g h t t o i n s i s t on t h e performance t h e y c l a i m t o be due from d e f e n d a n t under t h e a l l e g e d o r a l c o n t r a c t s . 3. Whether p l a i n t i f f s a r e p r e c l u d e d from r e c o v e r y on t h e a l l e g e d c o n t r a c t s i n view o f t h e i r own b r e a c h . 4. Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e of t h e a l l e g e d o r a l c o n t r a c t s t o make a w i l l d e v i s i n g r e a l p r o p e r t y . 5. Whether t h e a l l e g e d o r a l c o n t r a c t s t o d e v i s e r e a l p r o p e r t y and t o pay a c e r t a i n s h a r e of p r o f i t s from r a n c h o p e r a t i o n s a r e unenforceable a s being i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e of frauds. P l a i n t i f f s argue t h e appeal should be dismissed f o r f a i l u r e o f d e f e n d a n t t o move f o r a new t r i a l , and t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s i s s u e 2 , w a i v e r , and i s s u e 3 , b r e a c h , a r e n o t p r o p e r i s s u e s a s t h e y were not raised a t the d i s t r i c t court level. I n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e , defendant has adequate procedural ground t o s u p p o r t h i s a p p e a l and a f a i l u r e t o move f o r a new t r i a l i s n o t f a t a l t o h i s a p p e a l , a s urged by p l a i n t i f f s . Defendant a d i d move t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r . d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a t t h e c l o s e o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e based p r i n c i p a l l y on t h e ground t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a b a s i s upon which t h e j u r y c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y f i n d t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t s existed. T h i s motion p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e same q u e s - t i o n which p l a i n t i f f s u r g e can o n l y be p r e s e n t e d i n a motion f o r a new t r i a l f o l l o w i n g t h e v e r d i c t , i f t h i s C o u r t i s t o r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l on a p p e a l . The q u e s t i o n urged on a p p e a l h e r e --- t h a t evidence t o s u p p o r t a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f s was t o t a l l y l a c k i n g - - was d i r e c t l y p r e s e n t e d t o and r u l e d on by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . T h i s m a t t e r was t r e a t e d " i n K u c h i n s k i v . S e c u r i t y Gen. I n s . Co., 1 4 1 Mont. 515, 518, 380 P.2d 889, t h u s l y : I1 I A motion f o r a judgment o f n o n - s u i t , o r a motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , i s i n e f f e c t a demurrer t o t h e e v i d e n c e and p r e s e n t s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a q u e s t i o n of law t o b e d e t e r m i n e d [ C i t i n g c a s e s ] , a n d where e i t h e r o f s u c h motions i s made i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t and o v e r r u l e d , t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t and judgment i s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t on a p p e a l from t h e judgment. ' La Bonte v . Mutual F i r e e t c . I n s . C o . , 75 Mont. 1 [ l o ] , 241 P. 631, 634. 11 1 I f a motion f o r a new t r i a l h a s n o t been made, t h e c o u r t w i l l review t h e evidence t o determine whether t h e r e i s any s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y t h e v e r d i c t . [Citing cases. ] ' Harrington v. H. D. Lee M e r c a n t i l e Co., 97 Mont. 4 0 , 55, 33 P.2d 553, 556." Here, t h e two i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t h a v i n g t o do w i t h t h e a l l e g e d w a i v e r and b r e a c h o f p l a i n t i f f s , s h o u l d be considered. Under t h e a d m i t t e d employment a g r e e m e n t s f o r t h e p e r i o d s from 1957 t o 1964, and from 1965 t o 1966, and c o n c u r r e n t l y under t h e a l l e g e d c o n t r a c t s t o s h a r e i n t h e p r o f i t s and t o draw a w i l l , d e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d a n employment agreement t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l , b u t d e n i e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any a l l e g e d c o n t r a c t s t o s h a r e i n t h e p r o f i t s o r draw a w i l l . I n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r i s s u e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s e t t i n g t h e t r i a b l e i s s u e s o f f a c t and law, d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t l y s t a t e d a s a d e n i a l o f any alleged contracts either t o share i n the profits or t o f u l f i l l any o b l i g a t i o n t o d e v i s e o r b e q u e a t h t o p l a i n t i f f s any p r o p e r t y by w i l l . Rule 1 6 , Montana Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , p r o v i d e s a p r e t r i a l conference w i l l formulate t h e i s s u e s : * JcThe c o u r t s h a l l make a n o r d e r which r e c i t e s t h e a c t i o n t a k e n a t t h e c o n f e r e n c e , t h e amendments a l l o w e d t o t h e p l e a d i n g s , and t h e a g r e e m e n t s made by t h e p a r t i e s a s t o any o f t h e m a t t e r s c o n s i d e r e d , and which l i m i t s t h e i s s u e s f o r t r i a l t o t h o s e n o t d i s p o s e d o f by a d m i s s i o n s o r a g r e e m e n t s o f c o u n s e l ; and s u c h o r d e r when e n t e r e d c o n t r o l s t h e s u b s e q u e n t course of t h e a c t i o n , unless modified a t t h e t r i a l t o prevent manifest i n j u s t i c e . "Jc * * *" The p r e t r i a l o r d e r s e t t i n g f o r t h d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t s under which t h e p l a i n t i f f s were employed were t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l , and m a i n t a i n s a d e n i a l o f any of p l a i n t i f f s ' a l l e g e d c o n t r a c t s w i t h d e f e n d a n t . This Court i s compelled t o a g r e e w i t h p l a i n t i f f s ' argument t h a t i t s t a n d s t o r e a s o n i f t h e r e were no c o n t r a c t s t h e r e c o u l d b e n o b r e a c h e s , and i f t h e agreements were t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l , t h e p l a i n t i f f s were e n t i t l e d t o t e r m i n a t e a t any t i m e t h e y saw f i t . However, o f more c r u c i a l w e i g h t i s t h e p r o c e d u r a l p r o c e s s which r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e i s s u e s o f w a i v e r and b r e a c h were n o t made i s s u e s a t t h e t r i a l and t h u s may n o t b e i n t r o d u c e d on a p p e a l . This Court has s a i d on numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t i t w i l l c o n s i d e r f o r r e v i e w o n l y t h o s e questions raised i n t h e t r i a l court. Spencer v . R o b e r t s o n , 1 5 1 Mont. 307, 445 P.2d 4 8 ; C l a r k v . W o r r a l l , 146 Mont. 374, 406 P.2d I n r e f e r e n c e t o i s s u e 4 , we deem t h e a d m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e o f t h e a l l e g e d o r a l c o n t r a c t s t o make a w i l l d e v i s i n g r e a l p r o p e r t y t o have no b e a r i n g on t h i s a p p e a l , i n view 0 5 t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l of Count I11 i n e a c h c o m p l a i n t a t t h e c l o s e o f t h e evidence. The i s s u e o f t h e a l l e g e d o r a l c o n t r a c t s t o d e v i s e p r o p e r t y under t h e w i l l o f d e f e n d a n t was removed from t h e j u r y w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n and t h u s i s n o t a p a r t of t h i s a p p e a l . I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r i n c i p a l q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s a p p e a l , namely --- t h a t evidence t o support a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f p l a i n t i f f s was t o t a l l y l a c k i n g --- we w i l l b e g u i d e d by t h e long s t a n d i n g r u l e i n Montana a s s t a t e d i n Bernhard v. L i n c o l n County, 150 Mont. 557, 560, 437 P.2d 377: " \ h e n s u c h a q u e s t i o n i s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t we w i l l only review t h e evidence t o decide i f t h e v e r d i c t i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a 1 e v i d e n c e . Breen v . Indus t r i a 1 A c c i d e n t Board (Mont. 1 9 6 8 ) , 436 P.2d 701. The f a c t t h a t t h e r e were c o n f l i c t s i n t h e t e s t i m o n y does n o t mean t h e r e i s n o t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e v e r d i c t . W must a c c e p t t h e e v i d e n c e b e l i e v e d by t h e e I j u r y u n l e s s t h a t evidence i s s o i n h e r e n t l y impossible o r improbable a s n o t t o be e n t i t l e d t o b e l i e f *.' Wallace v . W a l l a c e , 85 Mont. 492, 279 P. 374, 377, 66 A.L.R. 587 (1929)." * An examina'tion o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s c o n f l i c t i n g b u t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e j u r y ' s finding of a contract a s opposed t o a v o l u n t a r y bonus. Defendant makes a s t r o n g argument t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f h i s two a c c o u n t a n t s , b o t h C.P.A. ' s , d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e y e a r l y payment was a bonus t h a t was p a i d by d e f e n d a n t t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s and u n d e r s t o o d t o be p a i d o n l y o u t o f " n e t o p e r a t i n g p r o f i t s f ' o f t h e ranching operations. 1f A t t h e t r i a l one a c c o u n t a n t d e f i n e d t h e n e t o p e r a t i n g p r o f i t f f a s " t h a t would i n c l u d e a l l r a n c h s a l e s , e x c e p t t h e s a l e s of l i v e s t o c k upon which t h e F e d e r a l income t a x p e o p l e w i l l g i v e us c a p i t a l g a i n s t r e a t m e n t " . The o t h e r d e s c r i b e d t h e operating p r o f i t a s t h e gross s a l e s of t h e c a t t l e l e s s e x p e n s e s , a n d . t h a t a s c h e d u l e of c a p i t a l g a i n s was k e p t w i t h such sums b e i n g t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y f o r income t a x purposes. A r e t i r e d v i c e - p r e s i d e n t and t r u s t o f f i c e r o f t h e F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank and T r u s t Company o f Helena, t e s t i f i e d a s t o h i s understanding i n these matters a s t h e r e s u l t of an e s t a t e planning meeting i n 1965 w i t h George Davis, Donald Davis and t h e a c c o u n t - "A. Well, a s I r e c a l l i t , M r . George Davis e x p l a i n e d what h i s i d e a was of n e t o p e r a t i n g income f o r t h e purpose o f d e t e r m i n i n g s a l a r y and bonuses--for a s a l a r y and bonus arrangement, and t h a t was t h e g r o s s o p e r a t i n g income, e x c l u d i n g c a p i t a 1 g a i n s , l e s s o r d i n a r y o p e r a t i n g expenses, and n o t i n c l u d i n g d e p r e c i a t i o n , and t h a t would b e t h e n e t - - t h a t would l e a v e you t h e n e t p r o f i t from t h e o p e r a t i o n . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e above s t a t e m e n t s s u p p o r t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n , t h e testimony o f t h e b r o t h e r s , Donald and Dan Davis, s t a n d s i n a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t from t h e o u t s e t . While t h e element o f d e p r e c i a t i o n i s n o t c o n t e s t e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e n e t o p e r a t i n g p r o f i t s , c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t t e s t i m o n y was g i v e n i n r e g a r d t o t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e element of c a p i t a l g a i n s i n t h e n e t o p e r a t i n g income. Dan Davis t e s t i f i e d : Now, i f you know, when you made t h i s o r i g i n a l agreement o r arrangement i n 1965, was t h e r e any d i s c u s s i o n had a s t o whether t h e c a p i t a l g a i n s income would be t r e a t e d t h e same way t h a t t h e o t h e r income was, M r . Davis? [ O b j e c t i o n s u s t a i n e d a t t h i s p o i n t . ] "Q. "MR LEAPHART: Was t h e r e any d i s c u s s i o n , l e t me p u t i t t h a t way? The d i s c u s s i o n t h a t took p l a c e , w e l l , t h a t was t h e y n e v e r t o l d m e t h a t i t was never discussed t o be deducted. It was j u s t supposed t o b e n e t p r o f i t . A . --- 11 Q . [Cross-examination] And when you s a y ' a l l o f t h e p r o f i t ' what do you mean by t h a t ? The d i f f e r e n c e between t o t a l s a l e s and t o t a l expenses, t h e p r o f i t . "A. "Q. Now, i n t h a t c l a i m t h a t you make, were you c o n t e n d i n g t h a t you were e n t i t l e d t o c a p i t a l p a i n ? "A. When h e made t h e agreement w i t h u s , h e n e v e r s a i d a n y t h i n g a b o u t h o l d i n g o u t c a p i t a l g a i n s . 11 (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . Dan Davis went on t o s t a t e t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t a p p l i e d t o b o t h of t h e a l l e g e d c o n t r a c t s . Donald Davis on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t e s t i f i e d : "Q. Now, t h e s e y e a r s when h e went o v e r t h e income and t h e expense o r t h e r a n c h w i t h you, and showed h i s p r o f i t , you and h e f r e q u e n t l y d i d n ' t s e e t h e p r o f i t t h e same, o r what t h e p r o r i t was a s you cont e n d was t o b e s h a r e d , i s t h a t r i g h t ? 'A. I d o n ' t e v e r remember o f h a v i n g any d i s c u s s i o n w i t h him. A t t i m e s when we were l o o k i n g o v e r t h e s e f i g u r e s , no, he never i n d i c a t e d t h a t c a p i t a l g a i n s ever entered i n t o t h i s d e a l a t a l l , b u t only t h a t t h e p r o f i t was t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e t o t a l s a l e s and t o t a l e x p e n s e s . He c l a i m e d t h a t t h e monies t h a t were t r e a t e d a s c a p i t a l g a i n s , a s f a r a s t a x p u r p o s e s were c o n c e r n e d , were i n c l u d e d i n t h e n e t p r o f i t s , i n h i s tax return. "Q. Do you b e l i e v e h e [ d e f e n d a n t ] was confused a b o u t i t ? "A. Well, a t f i r s t , t h e r e were t i m e s t h a t I t h o u g h t t h a t t h a t was a p o s s i b i l i t y . "Q. That h e was c o n f u s e d , and d i d n ' t u n d e r s t a n d i t t h e way you d i d , i s t h a t r i g h t ? I . Well, t h e r e was no doubt i n m mind t h a t t h e r e was y a d i f f e r e n c e . Now. I d o n ' t know how h e u n d e r s t o o d i t . b u t h e had been i n t h e b u s i n e s s long enough t h a t i t was c e r e t a i n l y hard t o r m t o b e l i e v e t h a t he r e a l l y understood i t t h e way he was t e l l i n g me h e u n d e r s t o o d i t - - - he had been i n t h e b u s i n e s s t o o l o n g t o make me b e l i e v e t h a t . 1 ' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) While t h e e v i d e n c e may s t a n d i n a p p a r e n t c o n f l i c t on t h e inclusion o r exclusion of the c a p i t a l gains i n the n e t operating p r o f i t o f t h e r a n c h e s , t h e j u r y was v e s t e d w i t h t h e s o l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e f a c t u a l i s s u e s and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s and t e s t imony . T h i s Court f i n d s n o t h i n g i n c o m p a t i b l e t h a t might n o t be e x p l a i n e d by t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t was concerned w i t h t a x m a t t e r s w i t h h i s a c c o u n t a n t s , and t r e a t e d Donald Davis and Dan Davis d i f f e r e n t l y w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e c o n t r a c t o f p r o t i t I t would b e wholly c o r s i s t e n t w i t h t h e normal under- sharing. s t a n d i n g and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s g i v e n t o t h e Davis b r o t h e r s t h a t t h e p r o f i t s meant revenues minus e x p e n s e s . The r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s t a k e n i n t h e l a w s u i t s and t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t a x m a t t e r s i s c o l l a t e r a l t o t h e i s s u e o f t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g between George Davis and t h e b r o t h e r s . T h i s Court w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h e f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s of t h e j u r y and f i n d s n o t h i n g t h a t i s i n c r e d i b l e o r i n s u f f i c i e n t i n t h e e v i d e n c e produced a t t r i a l , upon which t h e j u r y r e l i e d . In regard t o defendant's t i n a l issue---the frauds a s a bar t o o r a l c o n t r a c t s - - - i t s t a t u t e of is sufficient t o note t h a t t h e o r a l c o n t r a c t s o f p r o f i t s h a r i n g r e l i e d upon a t t r i a l , were f u l l y e x e c u t e d on t h e p a r t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s and a s s u c h represent a w e l l r e c o g n i z e d e x c e p t i o n t o t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s . Besse v . McHenry, 89 Mont. 520, 300 P . 199. The judgment o f t h e t r i a l / Associate J u s t i c e Ua*------Chief J u s t i c e Associae Q s t i c e s .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.